GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC V INNOSON NIGERIA LIMITED
April 15, 2025SYLVANUS EZE vs. UNIVERSITY OF JOS
April 15, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (CA) 12141
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT BENIN
Wed May 10, 2017
Suit Number: CA/B/37C/2015
CORAM
UWANI MUSA AJI
UWANI MUSA AJI
UWANI MUSA AJI
UWANI MUSA AJI
UWANI MUSA AJI
UWANI MUSA AJI
UWANI MUSA AJI
UWANI MUSA AJI
PARTIES
OSEMEKE KINGSLEY
THE STATE
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was charged before the High Court of Delta State sitting at Agbor on four counts of conspiracy to kidnap, demanding money with menaces, written threat to murder and conspiracy to murder and he pleaded not guilty to all the counts. At the trial, the Prosecution called three (3) witnesses in proof of its case beyond reasonable doubt and tendered Exhibits A the statement of the accused, Exhibits B and B1 which are the alleged text messages and Exhibit C the handset recovered from the accused. At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Appellant made a no case submission and the trial Court in its ruling, upheld the no case submission in respect of counts 1 and 4 pursuant to Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Law; but for counts 2 and 3 the trial Court overruled the no case submission and called upon the accused to open his defence. The Appellant testified for himself, denying the allegation against him and called no witnesses. At the end of the trial, the trial Court relied heavily on the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant in finding him guilty. Dissatisfied with the Judgment, the Appellant has appealed against same by filing a Notice of Appeal containing five Grounds of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the extra judicial statement of the Appellant to the police which he denied at the trial was rightly admitted in evidence as Exhibit A. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DUTY OF COURT ONCE A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS CHALLENGED ON GROUNDS THAT IT WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY MADE
“What can be gleaned from the above decision of the lower Court is that the trial Judge had decided to waive the issue of trial within trial and pushed it to the back burner for consideration at the final Judgment. It is however trite law and well settled that where the admissibility of a confessional statement is challenged on the ground that it was not voluntarily made, the trial Court then has the mandate to invite the prosecution to establish the voluntariness of the said statement by conducting a trial within trial. Suffice it to say that the trial Court failed to do same hence the issue on appeal as raised by the Appellant.
In ordinary legal parlance, once an extra judicial statement is objected to, it behoves on the trial Court to conduct a trial within trial to determine the admissibility of the said document in order to give credence to any further procedure of the Court”. –
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-DEFINITION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – BASIS ON WHICH THE COURT CAN ADMIT A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“S. 27(1) of the Evidence Act defines confessional statement as an admission made at any time by a person charged with commission of a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime in question. See Sunday V. Fed. Rep. Of Nig.(2013) LPELR 20192. There is indeed no gainsaying the fact that confession is the best evidence in criminal jurisprudence where the accused person admits that he committed the offence for which he is charged. For this purpose, the accused person is the figurative horse’s mouth. He committed the offence, confesses and admits the offence and there cannot be a better piece of evidence. In that regard, the law is that a trial Judge can admit a confessional statement only if it was made voluntarily and without any inducement, threat or promise from anyone in authority. See Saburi Adebayo V. A.G. Of Ogun State (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1055) 201. –
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-WHETHER COURTS ARE OBLIGATED TO CONDUCT A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON MAKES A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“In the instant case, once it has been established that the Appellant made a confessional statement, it becomes mandatory that the trial Judge conducts a trial within trial to determine the voluntariness of the said confessional statement. The process of trial within trial is not whether or not the Appellant retracted his statement but it is to test the voluntariness or otherwise of the statement. See Gwangwan V. The State (2011) LPELR 4223. See also Lasisi V. The State (2013) LPELR 20183. –
TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL –ESSENCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL
“The principle of trial within trial is one aspect of dispensing equal justice and fairness under the Rule of Law. By this simple procedure, it is assured that statements of a person charged with a criminal offence obtained by a police officer or anyone in authority otherwise afflicted by any inducement, threats or promises being illegal at law are expunged from the mainstream of the prosecution’s case at the trial of his cause or matter; and the Court is precluded from acting upon it in dealing with the case. In the instant case, the Appellant had clearly denied the fact that the statement was voluntarily made. Courts have ruled in a legion of cases that once a statement has been denied by an Appellant that it was made by duress, it becomes inadmissible until proved otherwise. The Apex Court in the case of Gbadamosi V. The State (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 266) 465 stated thus:
So much has been said by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal on the history and position and conduct of a trial within trial in our criminal procedure. I do not intend to embark on the same exercise in this Judgment, as there has been no ground of appeal filed challenging the long-standing procedure as illegal or contrary to law and therefore inviting us to set it aside. If and when that is done, the whole matter may have to be re-examined. Suffice it for me to say that I share the views of the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal as to the problems surrounding this procedure; but secondly, that the procedure is now very much of our vide The Queen v. Igwe (1960) SCNLR 158; (1960) FSC 55 at 56, that it cannot be overlooked or decreed into illegality by the Court of Appeal. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were, with respect, very wrong to have done so in the face of the decision of this Court which have made this procedure mandatory and part of the law.
–
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT –CONSEQUENCES OF ADMITTING A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WITHOUT CONDUCTING A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL
The legal implication of admitting Exhibit A which was timeously objected to on grounds that it was made under duress without conducting a trial within trial is that it shall be rejected. See Ehot V The State (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 290) 644 @ 673 para C. There is need to state clearly here that at this material point where the voluntariness of a confessional statement is in issue, the trial Court is under an obligation to conduct a trial within trial with a view to determining the admissibility or otherwise of the confession. –
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE – WHETHER A COURT CAN RELY ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AS THE BASIS OF ITS DECISION
“It is however settled law that a Court is not entitled to rely on a document or process which it had already declared inadmissible as the basis of its decision as the learned trial did in the instant case. See the following: Kabir V. Action Congress (2012) AII FWLR (PT. 649) 638; Shanu V. Afribank Nig. Plc (2013) FWLR (PT. 136) 823 @ 851 – 852 para G A. –
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – DUTY ON COURTS TO FIRST DECIDE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE BEFORE ALLOWING IT TO GO IN
“I reiterate the position of the Apex Court in the case of Gbadamosi V. The State per Ogundare JSC when he thus stated:
when evidence is tendered and objection is taken to it, as a matter of law, a Judge decides on the admissibility of that evidence before allowing it to go in. To allow evidence objected to, to go in first and decide at the end of the trial on its admissibility might likely result in some miscarriage of justice for it would be impossible to say that the mind of the Judge as a Judge of fact would not have been poisoned or affected by the contents of that evidence even though at the end it was held to be inadmissible.
–
FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT- CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD INTERFER WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
“Since the trial Court failed to draw the necessary inferences from proved facts, which would have tilted the imaginary scale of justice in favour of the Appellant, this Court will have no option than to interfere with such findings of the lower Court particularly where such findings as in the instant case are adjudged perverse. See:
1. Aderoti V. The State (2009) AII FWLR (PT 454) 1450.
2. Edjekpo V. Osia (2007) AII FWLR (PT. 361) 1617.
3. Anyanwu V. Uzowuaka (2009) 13 NWLR 119 @ 143.
–
PERVERSE FINDING – MEANING OF PERVERSE FINDING
“This is a proper case for this Court to interfere as the Judgment of the trial Court is adjudged perverse. In the case of Atolagbe V. Shorun (1985) NWLR (PT. 2) 360, the Apex Court defines perverse as simply persistence in error, different from what is reasonable or required, against the weight of evidence. In the case at hand, the trial Court simply shut its eyes to the obvious procedure of conducting a trial within trial. A perverse finding is also one that ignores the evidence or normal procedure before the Court and which results in or amounts to a miscarriage of justice. See Atolagbe V. Shorun (supra)”. –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Code Cap. C21 Vol. I
